Escudero slams ex-justices critical of SC ruling on VP Sara impeachment

Senate President Francis “Chiz” Escudero on Wednesday slammed retired Supreme Court (SC) justices who are critical of the high court’s ruling on the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte.

“Bahagi ako ng Kongresong nagtangka na i-impeach si dating Chief Justice Davide. Bakit ko sinabing tangka? Dahil pinigilan po kami ng Korte Suprema. In-enjoin at nag issue ng TRO ang Korte Suprema at ito ang desisyon na iyon,” he said during the plenary session where senators were expected to decide whether to abide by the SC ruling or not. 

(I was part of the Congress that attempted to impeach former Chief Justice Davide. Why did I say attempted? Because we were stopped by the SC. The SC issued an injunction and a TRO, and this is that decision.)

Escudero named retired SC justices Conchita Carpio-Morales, Antonio Carpio, and Adolfo Azcuna, as well as former chief justices Reynato Puno and Artemio Panganiban. They all voted in 2003 that the second impeachment complaint against then Chief Justice Hilario Davide was barred under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, which says “[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.”

Written by Carpio-Morales, the decision in Francisco vs. House of Representatives said that an impeachment is deemed initiated upon the filing of the impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, or when an impeachment complaint is filed and verified by at least one-third of the membership of the House.

“Nasaan po ang lahat ng nagrereklamo ngayon at nagku-kwestyon sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema? ‘Yung mga mahistradong nag kwe-kwestyon ngayon na retirado na, bumoto sila pabor doon,” Escudero said.

(Where are all those who are complaining now and questioning the Supreme Court’s decision? The justices who are now questioning it are already retired, they voted in favor of it back then.)

“Subalit ngayon tila nag iba ang posisyon. Ano nga ba ang pinagkaiba kung meron man? Klaro ang pinagkaiba, iba ang pangalan ng nasasakdal,” he added.

(But now, it seems their position has changed. What exactly is the difference, if there is any? The difference is clear, the name of the accused is different.)

In its July 25, 2025 ruling, the SC declared the fourth impeachment complaint, which was transmitted to the Senate, was unconstitutional, saying that it was barred by the one-year bar rule under Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.

The high court also found that the articles violated Duterte’s right to due process.

Further, in contrast to the Francisco ruling, the SC ruled that the one-year ban is reckoned from the time an impeachment complaint is dismissed or is no longer viable.

As a result, the SC said the Senate did not acquire jurisdiction over the impeachment proceedings.

The House of Representatives appealed the ruling on Tuesday.

The SC meanwhile ordered Duterte to comment on the motion for reconsideration. 

1Sambayan coalition, which includes Carpio-Morales and Carpio, previously filed a motion for reconsideration, urging the SC to issue a status quo ante order and set the case for oral arguments. 

Escudero asked if those critical of the SC ruling are “truly for accountability” or “simply anti-Duterte.” 

“Remove the name of the vice president in this case, apply the decision of the high court, as Senator Cayetano said earlier, to another impeachable official, would our positions, would your positions be the same?” he said.

When sought for comment, Carpio said that they filed the motion for reconsideration as they are defending the Francisco ruling. —VBL/RF, GMA Integrated News